Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 9, 2018 14:27:26 GMT
Aj_June
The only authority we have is the authority bestowed upon us by...wait for it...the authority.
Heck, some countries don't even allow ones to question authority.
The reason why there is a remote possibility of knocking off someone is because we identify authority as a pillar of society run by humans. So to judge the notion of God being good on the bais of human limitations is a weird proposition to begin with.
To be clear, that is all you're saying. Because we can not inflict damage on God like we can each other, then God cannot be defined. This is faulty reasoning.
I still cannot comprehend why someone has a need to punish God based on a hypothetical that does not happen. I don't even know why authority is based on the count of punishment one can inflict.
Maybe this is all addressed later.
Another example of defining something on the basis of our view of an invented & illogical assumption.
I don't agree with us having an intrinsic understanding of God. Clearly we don't.
What we know of God in the Bible is what we learn about him. The definition did not come before him as if he had a role to fill.
For example, let's pretend that eternal torment is a thing. By your argument, the existence of it would automatically be something a monotheistic God would do and thus we could not determine whether it was a good and that we automatically assume it was just.
I say that the laws God has actually implemented are what define whether he or the law is good.
Discord & disruption. I mistrust and hatred of things he does for his creation.
Nearly his entire human creation on multiple occasions have abandoned the clearly better path of following him for momentary wants and then blame him for when things go wrong for their boneheaded actions.
Even while that is happening, a large portion of his heavenly empire is rebelling against him as well.
This has always put people that love him in greater danger and while we don't know how life works in heaven, his angels which he may have created and has known for untold and countless years are warring with each other as well.
Now granted none of this means anything if you think the only thing that matters is that law is implemented, but since we have Scripture to go off of and only your word to the contrary (Again no basis for your statements beyond the statement itself), we know this things have a profound impact on God even if it stops shorting of your standard of killing him.
I have no idea how you can make this conclusion.
All God changing his mind means is that he is more than justice and perfection entails more than the justice component.
Per Scripture God is move by justice, power or ability, love, & wisdom with love, not justice, as the primary motivator These qualities allow for change and is reflected almost immediately in Scripture (Genesis 3) and permeates throughout which is why it's so odd that you pretend it doesn't and have no interest in proving your misguided point.
Are you telling me that I have real respect for historical figures?
Do I have real respect for Napoleon, Stalin, King Tut, Caesar, Thomas Jefferson, etc... on the basis of them being historical figures I've heard of more than others?
You put a caveat in there about excepting evil ones, but how do you have the right to determine who was evil?
Greatness and good are not human qualities. They are qualities that humans can define particular actions, but we don't own the words.
Sure. We individuals do not have. But the system has or there is potential. You can try to take down a corrupt prime minister even if it is against constitution and you can potentially knock her off. But no matter how much you try you cannot knock off God from being God or punish God in anyway. You have no chance against God. Zero.
Heck, some countries don't even allow ones to question authority.
The reason why there is a remote possibility of knocking off someone is because we identify authority as a pillar of society run by humans. So to judge the notion of God being good on the bais of human limitations is a weird proposition to begin with.
To be clear, that is all you're saying. Because we can not inflict damage on God like we can each other, then God cannot be defined. This is faulty reasoning.
I still cannot comprehend why someone has a need to punish God based on a hypothetical that does not happen. I don't even know why authority is based on the count of punishment one can inflict.
Maybe this is all addressed later.
A untrustworthy God is no God unless she has mentioned untrustworthiness as one of her attributes.
Yes, God doesn’t deserve praise for something that is his intrinsic feature or what is naturally expected of her. You can honour the laws made by God but the God doesn’t become good by writing those laws.
What we know of God in the Bible is what we learn about him. The definition did not come before him as if he had a role to fill.
For example, let's pretend that eternal torment is a thing. By your argument, the existence of it would automatically be something a monotheistic God would do and thus we could not determine whether it was a good and that we automatically assume it was just.
I say that the laws God has actually implemented are what define whether he or the law is good.
What are the consequences that God faces for his actions? An example will help the discussion move forward. The thing is that there is no one to judge god or to punish him.
Nearly his entire human creation on multiple occasions have abandoned the clearly better path of following him for momentary wants and then blame him for when things go wrong for their boneheaded actions.
Even while that is happening, a large portion of his heavenly empire is rebelling against him as well.
This has always put people that love him in greater danger and while we don't know how life works in heaven, his angels which he may have created and has known for untold and countless years are warring with each other as well.
Now granted none of this means anything if you think the only thing that matters is that law is implemented, but since we have Scripture to go off of and only your word to the contrary (Again no basis for your statements beyond the statement itself), we know this things have a profound impact on God even if it stops shorting of your standard of killing him.
It is your wish but here is the thing - If God’s nature or standard changes then it implies that God is not a perfect being. It may also mean that his justice is not fair. Such a situation creates ethical issues for God and essentially contradicts the nature of monotheistic God. The concept that God’s essential nature and power does not change is tied to mathematical concept of eternity and infinity.
All God changing his mind means is that he is more than justice and perfection entails more than the justice component.
Per Scripture God is move by justice, power or ability, love, & wisdom with love, not justice, as the primary motivator These qualities allow for change and is reflected almost immediately in Scripture (Genesis 3) and permeates throughout which is why it's so odd that you pretend it doesn't and have no interest in proving your misguided point.
I think we give real respect to historical figures. Some of them motivate us. Some have buildings and places named after that. Token respect is respect we give to almost every human (except evil ones may be) out of courtesy and human kindness.
Do I have real respect for Napoleon, Stalin, King Tut, Caesar, Thomas Jefferson, etc... on the basis of them being historical figures I've heard of more than others?
You put a caveat in there about excepting evil ones, but how do you have the right to determine who was evil?
Greatness and good are not human qualities. They are qualities that humans can define particular actions, but we don't own the words.